Articles in the Judicial Authority and Administration category

Jeff wrote last week about several provisions in the 2026 Appropriations Act that might be of interest to readers. This week, I’m back with one more: Section 16.19 of the […]

North Carolina has a budget again. S257 became S.L. 2026-41 when Governor Stein signed it on July 7. The bill contains many provisions pertinent to the criminal justice community. Some, […]

A colleague recently came into my office carrying Volume 3 of the General Statutes of North Carolina Annotated by Lexis Nexis (what we attorneys call “the green book”) with a […]

A few years ago, T-shirts and coffee mugs with the phrase “Please do not confuse your Google search with my law degree,” were making the rounds. What simpler times those […]

Judicial branch officials may be removed from office through a variety of proceedings. Judges of the trial courts and appellate court judges and justices may be removed from office by […]

In 1971, the Courts Commission made a report to the North Carolina General Assembly in which it recommended adoption of a constitutional amendment that would allow for a “workable method […]

Author’s Note: Medication assisted treatment (MAT) is now available at the DART Center provided that the treatment began before arrival at the Center. MAT will not be initiated at the […]

House Bill 620, chaptered as S.L. 2025-54, enacted several changes affecting judicial authority and administration that may be of interest to practitioners generally. This post will review the legislation’s provisions affecting removal proceedings, the jurisdiction of specially assigned superior court judges, substitution of one trial judge for another, age limits for service as a trial judge, protocols for recovery courts, the disclosure of courtroom audio recordings, training and educational materials for jurors, and the appointment of magistrates.

When a person is arrested, a law enforcement officer must take that person before a judicial official without unnecessary delay. Subject to certain statutory exceptions, defendants charged with most noncapital offenses are entitled to pretrial release in accordance with G.S. 15A-534, which requires that at least one of five types of release be imposed before a defendant can be released. One type of release a judicial official may impose on a defendant is a “custody release,” under which a defendant is placed “in the custody of a designated person or organization agreeing to supervise him.” G.S. 15A-534(a)(3). This is the extent to which the custody release is described. The North Carolina general statutes do not provide additional guidance as to qualifications of a custodian, terms of the supervision, or penalties for improper supervision.

Other states have pretrial release statutes that are identical or substantially similar to that of North Carolina, explicitly providing for pretrial release of a defendant into the custody of an individual or organization. Many of those statutes—like that of North Carolina—do not offer further guidance regarding the custodian’s supervision of the defendant. However, there are a few that offer additional detail about the parameters of the custody release.

This post highlights custody release provisions in select states. While none of them is binding on this condition in our state, North Carolina judicial officials may find the information useful in crafting their local pretrial release policies.

In State v. Aspiote, ___ N.C. App. ___ (May 21, 2025), the North Carolina Court of Appeals determined that the trial court erred in holding a defendant in direct criminal contempt for appearing in court to plead guilty with impairing substances in his system. This post will review the circumstances that led to the contempt finding in Aspiote and the Court of Appeals’ analysis of why the trial court erred and will consider a trial court’s authority to hold a person in contempt for appearing in court while impaired.